Single Player-Only and Multiplayer-Only

[Andronicus]

Personally, it doesn't really matter to me how good the multiplayer component of a single player game is; if it's there, then that means developers wasted time and disk space that could have been otherwise spent making the single-player game bigger and better.

Not that I have anything against multiplayer (well, actually I do, but that's not my point here). In my opinion, there are single player games, and then there are multiplayer games. They should be segregated, instead of trying desperately to add multiplayer components to single player games, or adding some atrocity to something that the devs obviously only made to act as a tutorial to the multiplayer. This applies to co-op as well.

But that's just what I think. I feel strongly about it, but I'd imagine that I'm the minority here. Is there anybody out there that feels the same way?

 

[similar.squirrel]

I don't think you're the minority. I've heard the same opinion expressed countless times in various places.

In the case of single-player titles, a multiplayer variant should only come about as a result of demand, and it should be released separately. That way, developers will avoid wasting time better spent, and multiplayer-folk will eventually get what they want.

Didn't Half-Life 2 arena come about like that?

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Nah, I disagree. Many single-player game's lifespans are improved by the inclusion of multiplayer, while a lot of multiplayer-centric games benefit from a single-player as a training tool of sorts, letting you wade in a kiddie pool before taking it to the big leagues. That isn't even counting games like Call of Duty, which are multiplayer focused but, in my opinion, still have very high quality single player campaigns.

Did Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood or Dead Space 2 suffer from having multiplayer? I don't think so. They were both fantastic, and though their multiplayer modes were somewhat hit (Brotherhood) or miss (Dead Space), they didn't take anything away from single player. Ditto Bioshock 2. And yes, I was one of the those few, those happy few, that enjoyed Bioshock 2's multiplayer.

 

[gphjr14]

Even though developers and distributors will never eat the loss in profits I'd love to see games sold with the two parts separate. Something like Assassin Creed that never needed multiplayer could be sold cheaper without the multiplayer and for those who like it they can spend 10 extra bucks so it evens out to be $59.99 (in the US).

 

[Andronicus]

Incidentally, I've accidentally made three copies of this thread by accident, firstly because my internet exploded, and I didn't think the first one posted, and secondly because I couldn't see the second one in the topic list (I swear it wasn't there), so I assumed it hadn't posted.

Apologies for that. I'd appreciate it if any mods who see them please just delete them OHGODOHGODPLEASEDONTKILLME! 8O

EDIT: As I speak, I know I've posted a third copy, but I can't see it. I know it's there though, lurking...

 

[kouriichi]

Call of Duty should not has a Single Player Campaign.

Skyrim Should not have an online MMO mode.

People over the age of 65 shouldnt be in government.

And breakfast should always include something sweet.


These are the main 4 rules i live by, believe, and refuse to change unless circumstances dictate my life would be 200% better if said rules were broken.
To think that a large percentage of the budget for MW2 went into its horrible, short, and overly blunt singleplayer story makes me sick to my stomach.

Tutorials are ok. But they dont need to be 6-8 hours long, and involve waves of enemys who heave endless grenades at your face.

And singleplayer games should be singleplayer. I play them to get AWAY from idiots. Its why i cant enjoy WoW anymore. To many idiots barking about how the world needs to revolve around them. At least in Oblivion/Morrowind and soon Skyrim, you can do something about that. With an axe. Several times over thanks to the save feature.

Soooooooo, i agree with you. It subtracts from the experience your supposed to get.

 

[Zhukov]

Personally, I rather like being able to get both for one price.

Besides, saying that including multiplayer, even not particularly good multiplayer, automatically decreases the quality of a game is bullshit.

Dead Space 2
Bioshock 2
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood
Portal 2

Four games off the top of my head that managed to be good (cue someone: "They sucked!") while still including online multiplayer modes.

 

[Andronicus]

Nah, I disagree. Many single-player game's lifespans are improved by the inclusion of multiplayer, while a lot of multiplayer-centric games benefit from a single-player as a training tool of sorts, letting you wade in a kiddie pool before taking it to the big leagues. That isn't even counting games like Call of Duty, which are multiplayer focused but, in my opinion, still have very high quality single player campaigns.

Did Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood or Dead Space 2 suffer from having multiplayer? I don't think so. They were both fantastic, and though their multiplayer modes were somewhat hit (Brotherhood) or miss (Dead Space), they didn't take anything away from single player. Ditto Bioshock 2. And yes, I was one of the those few, those happy few, that enjoyed Bioshock 2's multiplayer.

So you never think that maybe if the multiplayer wasn't there, the single-player might be even better? You genuinely think the single player is absolutely perfect? It can't be added to, or refined, in any way? You don't think the lifespan can be expanded by more single-player? I haven't actually played Brotherhood, so I don't know how well that plays.

Another problem I have is that I genuinely think multiplayer gameplay is so jarringly different to single-player gameplay, that it ruins the single-player by being there. It just amazes me that the devs can build up this beautiful single-player experience, with a great story and fantastical world. And then they go and add fucking multiplayer ("HEY, YOU LIKED ALL THAT SINGLE PLAYER SHIT RIGHT? RIGHT?! WELL NOW, YOU CAN RUN AROUND IN THAT WORLD AND BLAST THE SHIT OUT OF YOUR FRIENDS AND RANDOM STRANGERS ON THE INTERNET! WHOOP-EE!"). It's just degrading, pointless, unnecessary and anti-immersive; whatever the opposite of immersive is, multiplayer is it. It ruins single player for me.

Whatever great work the devs spent on the single player, it becomes redundant by turning it into just another box to shoot your friends in.

 

[legion431]

True, look how Team Fortress 2 went. Valve can still spend the time fixing and updating the game without having to worry about bugs if a single player was added. Valve have also made some truly brilliant single player games. Left 4 dead incorporated co-op which was also lots of fun but that was just an addition to the single player.

 

[trooper6]

So you never think that maybe if the multiplayer wasn't there, the single-player might be even better? You genuinely think the single player is absolutely perfect? It can't be added to, or refined, in any way? You don't think the lifespan can be expanded by more single-player? I haven't actually played Brotherhood, so I don't know how well that plays.

There are plenty of single player games that don't have multiplayer that aren't "absolutely perfect." I don't think it is useful to blame multiplayer for your dissatisfaction with a single-player game.

But wait...you have more...

Another problem I have is that I genuinely think multiplayer gameplay is so jarringly different to single-player gameplay, that it ruins the single-player by being there. It just amazes me that the devs can build up this beautiful single-player experience, with a great story and fantastical world. And then they go and add fucking multiplayer ("HEY, YOU LIKED ALL THAT SINGLE PLAYER SHIT RIGHT? RIGHT?! WELL NOW, YOU CAN RUN AROUND IN THAT WORLD AND BLAST THE SHIT OUT OF YOUR FRIENDS AND RANDOM STRANGERS ON THE INTERNET! WHOOP-EE!"). It's just degrading, pointless, unnecessary and anti-immersive; whatever the opposite of immersive is, multiplayer is it. It ruins single player for me.

Whatever great work the devs spent on the single player, it becomes redundant by turning it into just another box to shoot your friends in.

This just makes no sense to me. Why should the very existence of multiplayer ruin your enjoyment of a single player game? I am almost exclusively a single-player person...but the existence of a multiplayer mode on a disk doesn't effect my single player run through at all. I just don't play the multi-player mode and move on. People really loved the multiplayer in Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow...that's cool. I'm very happy that Pandora Tomorrow contained an option that made so many people happy. I stuck to the single-player and I enjoyed it very much. My single-player experience was not effected in any way by the existence of multi-player on that disk.

If you don't like it, you don't have to play it.
Don't assume if the multi-player weren't there the single player would have been better...it probably wouldn't.
Don't begrudge multi-player players their fun too.
We're all gamers, let's live and let live.

 

[random_bars]

I... Actually no, I don't agree. It does seem kind of weird, initially, to have what are essentially two separate games put together on the same disc. But it's not like they're two entirely separate entities - they're the same core gameplay, just used in two different ways, taken in two different directions. Why shouldn't a game with interesting, unique mechanics use them in a structured fashion to deliver a predetermined single player experience, and then set them free for players to use as they like in a dynamic, multiplayer experience?

Granted, this definitely doesn't work all the time. In general I've found that there are two types of games - firstly, ones in which the gameplay depends entirely on the environment, in which there can be lots of elements but they don't really support one another, and what the player can do is entirely dependant on the pre-designed levels. In these games, multiplayer generally is a bad idea because taken on its own, the gameplay doesn't have any weight to it.

But then there are other games in which the gameplay is much more self-supporting, in which huge amounts of variety can unfold simply by how the different elements happen to interact with each other. It's games like these which are generally very good at being multiplayer games, as their single player generally tends to consist of little individual parts of the entire gameplay experience with everything else restricted, so the multiplayer allows the mechanics to be free to play out on their own.

Of course there are games like that which don't need multiplayer to do that, or games in which multiplayer just wouldn't work. It all depends on the game. But my main point is, multiplayer doesn't always have to be a pointless, shoehorned-in 'generic deathmatch in a box', but in some cases can allow the mechanics of a game to expand beyond what they can do in single player, into something far more diverse and interesting.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Nah, I disagree. Many single-player game's lifespans are improved by the inclusion of multiplayer, while a lot of multiplayer-centric games benefit from a single-player as a training tool of sorts, letting you wade in a kiddie pool before taking it to the big leagues. That isn't even counting games like Call of Duty, which are multiplayer focused but, in my opinion, still have very high quality single player campaigns. Did Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood or Dead Space 2 suffer from having multiplayer? I don't think so. They were both fantastic, and though their multiplayer modes were somewhat hit (Brotherhood) or miss (Dead Space), they didn't take anything away from single player. Ditto Bioshock 2. And yes, I was one of the those few, those happy few, that enjoyed Bioshock 2's multiplayer.

So you never think that maybe if the multiplayer wasn't there, the single-player might be even better? You genuinely think the single player is absolutely perfect? It can't be added to, or refined, in any way? You don't think the lifespan can be expanded by more single-player? I haven't actually played Brotherhood, so I don't know how well that plays. Another problem I have is that I genuinely think multiplayer gameplay is so jarringly different to single-player gameplay, that it ruins the single-player by being there. It just amazes me that the devs can build up this beautiful single-player experience, with a great story and fantastical world. And then they go and add fucking multiplayer ("HEY, YOU LIKED ALL THAT SINGLE PLAYER SHIT RIGHT? RIGHT?! WELL NOW, YOU CAN RUN AROUND IN THAT WORLD AND BLAST THE SHIT OUT OF YOUR FRIENDS AND RANDOM STRANGERS ON THE INTERNET! WHOOP-EE!"). It's just degrading, pointless, unnecessary and anti-immersive; whatever the opposite of immersive is, multiplayer is it. It ruins single player for me. Whatever great work the devs spent on the single player, it becomes redundant by turning it into just another box to shoot your friends in.

We will have to agree to disagree on your second point. To me, single and mutliplayer are two seperate entities and do not crossover in my mind except under some very specific circumstances. I`ve enjoyed plenty of single player games with bad multiplayer (RDR, Dead Space 2, etc) and conversely plenty of great multiplayer games with bad single player (Every fighting game ever). The quality of one doesn`t effect the quality of the other.

On that point, multiplayer rarely detracts from a game because, honestly, the main problems many people have games are issues with design, story, or some other nebulous concept that couldn`t be fixed by more time or money because they are usually the way the devs intended them to be. Dead Space 2 wouldn`t have gotten any scarier without multiplayer, for example. Any REAL problems with the game can be patched once it comes out.

 

[Ordinaryundone]

Edit: Double Post

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Portal 2 did a wonderful job of incorporating multiplayer into a single player game. Its all about substance. I am sure I am in the minority, but I have grown tired of the arena style vs maps that plague the popular multiplayer games of today. The problem is that the default type of multiplayer many single player games go to is this arena style.
I prefer substance and story in my multiplayer regardless if its coop or vs. You just don't seem to get that in a strong single player game. Imagine something like the new Deus Ex having a multiplayer. No story, they just drop you in the middle of one of its "warehouse" maps and let you go crazy. Thats not why I bought Deus Ex.

 

[Andronicus]

So you never think that maybe if the multiplayer wasn't there, the single-player might be even better? You genuinely think the single player is absolutely perfect? It can't be added to, or refined, in any way? You don't think the lifespan can be expanded by more single-player? I haven't actually played Brotherhood, so I don't know how well that plays.

There are plenty of single player games that don't have multiplayer that aren't "absolutely perfect." I don't think it is useful to blame multiplayer for your dissatisfaction with a single-player game.

If I feel dissatisfied with a game, I (generally) don't just say "Oh, it's crap, must be MP's fault". However, you have to agree, MP takes up developer resources, time and money. Who's to say that couldn't have been spent adding just a little bit more to SP? I try not to dwell on it too much, but it constantly lingers in the back of my mind, more so lately, due to the increased penetration of MP into, well, everything.

Another problem I have is that I genuinely think multiplayer gameplay is so jarringly different to single-player gameplay, that it ruins the single-player by being there. It just amazes me that the devs can build up this beautiful single-player experience, with a great story and fantastical world. And then they go and add fucking multiplayer ("HEY, YOU LIKED ALL THAT SINGLE PLAYER SHIT RIGHT? RIGHT?! WELL NOW, YOU CAN RUN AROUND IN THAT WORLD AND BLAST THE SHIT OUT OF YOUR FRIENDS AND RANDOM STRANGERS ON THE INTERNET! WHOOP-EE!"). It's just degrading, pointless, unnecessary and anti-immersive; whatever the opposite of immersive is, multiplayer is it. It ruins single player for me.

Whatever great work the devs spent on the single player, it becomes redundant by turning it into just another box to shoot your friends in.

This just makes no sense to me. Why should the very existence of multiplayer ruin your enjoyment of a single player game? I am almost exclusively a single-player person...but the existence of a multiplayer mode on a disk doesn't effect my single player run through at all.

What I'm saying is that you've built up a certain amount of knowledgability and respect for the world and the story that the developers have crafted, that it feels almost as though it could be real, but knowing that the MP function is there makes everything feel... unreal. Dilute. Incidental. Okay, I know it's just a videogame, yeah, but isn't 'immersion' one of the main features touted in videogames these days? That's what you come to expect, but I don't get that from MP. It's like you've spent half and hour admiring the Mona Lisa, speculating on her desires and thoughts, and the master who painted it, and then you turn it over and found out that da Vinci used the back to write about a nice sandwich he ate last week. It really spoils the effect. I mean, it was probably a great sandwich, and it's probably fascinating for renaissance culinary historians, I appreciate that, but... really? You had to put it right there?

It could just be me, but well, it just makes my forehead throb every time I see a menu with:

Campaign
Multiplayer
Settings
etc

I just don't play the multi-player mode and move on. People really loved the multiplayer in Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow...that's cool. I'm very happy that Pandora Tomorrow contained an option that made so many people happy. I stuck to the single-player and I enjoyed it very much. My single-player experience was not effected in any way by the existence of multi-player on that disk.

If you don't like it, you don't have to play it.
Don't assume if the multi-player weren't there the single player would have been better...it probably wouldn't.
Don't begrudge multi-player players their fun too.
We're all gamers, let's live and let live.

Well, yeah I just don't play multiplayer either. Thing is, I paid for that fucker. Good money, too. Why am I being required to pay for something I don't want, in order to get something I do? That could be said for numerous things in the SP campaign anyway, but hell, at least it's all part of a cohesive package. MP has nothing to do with the SP, except for context and control scheme. Suppose I want to play just Modern Warfare's SP (without pirating it, obviously). Do I seriously have to pay $100+ just to play something that the devs obviously place below MP on their list of priorities?

And I don't begrudge MP players their fun, but there are already so many other MP games out there (invariably clones of each other, but hey, who's judging?), why do they need to have their fun in a game that was obviously designed for a single-player audience?

 

[Mirror Cage]

On that point, multiplayer rarely detracts from a game because, honestly, the main problems many people have games are issues with design, story, or some other nebulous concept that couldn`t be fixed by more time or money because they are usually the way the devs intended them to be. Dead Space 2 wouldn`t have gotten any scarier without multiplayer, for example. Any REAL problems with the game can be patched once it comes out.

That.


But more to point of the post: I don't agree. Even games I was underwhelmed with (Fable 3, GoW2, Terraria [to clarify, Terraria just got boring after a while]) were made worth a few playthroughs due to the co-operative element in them.

 

[Qitz]

I see nothing wrong with having both single player and multi-player in a game.

Some games are just damn fun to play with someone else. I still remember playing Splinter Cell Co-Op with a friend of mine and kicking a door in that he had the misfortune of being behind.

I don't see why people think that just because they make multi-player in a game means that the single player suffers. Sure there could be SOME resources pulled off to help get multi-player set up, tested or bugs fixed but I doubt that it isn't planed and just tacked on by ripping people and resources off of single player.

 

[trooper6]

Well, yeah I just don't play multiplayer either. Thing is, I paid for that fucker. Good money, too. Why am I being required to pay for something I don't want, in order to get something I do? That could be said for numerous things in the SP campaign anyway, but hell, at least it's all part of a cohesive package. MP has nothing to do with the SP, except for context and control scheme. Suppose I want to play just Modern Warfare's SP (without pirating it, obviously). Do I seriously have to pay $100+ just to play something that the devs obviously place below MP on their list of priorities?

And I don't begrudge MP players their fun, but there are already so many other MP games out there (invariably clones of each other, but hey, who's judging?), why do they need to have their fun in a game that was obviously designed for a single-player audience?

If the game didn't have multiplayer, it wouldn't be cheaper. Mass Effect 2, Oblivion, etc...they are both single player only...and they aren't cheaper. Developers have price points. If the price point for a AAA game on the console is $59.95, it is going to be $59.95. If the game is single player only, it is going to be $59.95 if it is multi-player only, it is going to be $59.95 if it is both single and multi player.

You talk about just the existence of multi-player on a game disk, even if you never play it or look at it completely ruining your enjoyment of the single player game....that is...well, that sounds like a personal problem, rather than an industry problem. I recommend getting a bit Zen and letting go. It is the way of the industry. Breathe through it, and just ignore multiplayer if you hate it so much.

Life is too short to stress yourself out that much. Enjoy the parts of the games you like. Don't worry about the things your can't change and that don't effect you.

 

[Something Amyss]

My biggest problem is that multiplayer is usually at best, an innocuous addition. More likely, it is deleterious. Now, I'm of the opinion that online in RDR didn't hurt single player anyway, but that's an example of what I said, not an exception to it.

More games that are multiplayer only would be nice, too, because it IS stupid to tack on a token four hour campaign.

 

[everythingbeeps]

Some single-player games lend themselves to multiplayer. Probably most don't.

But I also think you're fooling yourself if you think the devs would work more on the single-player if they didn't have to worry about the multiplayer, or that there's valuable disc space being sacrificed for the multiplayer. There usually isn't.